Talk:Models of communication/Archives/2024/April

Edit-blocking by User:Phlsph7
The "owner" of this Wikipedia article appears to be blocking corrections to the article. Most recently he has removed corrections by alleging copyright violation, without actually reading the cited source. I request appointing a more mature guardian of this Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:748F:CA76:201D:D370 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a misunderstanding since Wikipedia does not appoint owners or guardians to articles and no edit block is in place. Copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia. This means that it is not acceptable to copy-paste text from a copyrighted source or closely paraphrase that text, see WP:CV and WP:PARAPHRASE. If you think that this Wikipedia policy is not relevant to your addition then you can use the talk page to explain your point. If you do so, I would strongly suggest that you change your tone to avoid insulting editors in the future, see WP:UNCIVIL. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disapprove of the tone but agree that the proposed version specifying the model designer's perspective is a better reflection of the source and is highly relevant to the article. Notwithstanding, the whole article needs fundamental improvement because it suffers from self-contradiction - either the truth of communication is known, or it is unknown/in dispute. If it is in dispute, then a model cannot be a simplification, because a simplification assumes knowing the truth. If on the other hand the truth of communication is understood and beyond dispute, then there is no reason to use the word "model", it would suffice to use the word "simplification". As it stands, a significant portion of the article confuses "model" with "simplification", and that confusion is alas reflected in some of the sources. 37.5.242.34 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you attempt to address the problem. However, the new proposal still suffers from the same problem. It might be helpful to take a close reading of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, especially the discussion in the section "Example". Copy-pasting a sentence from a source and changing one or two words is usually not acceptable. If you are unsure about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can always suggest changes on the talk page rather than adding them directly to the article. I tried to add your idea in a different form, which I hope addresses the point you were most concerned about.
 * Models of communication are usually presented as simplifications in the reliable sources, including the source from which you copied the sentence. Since Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, it is not our responsibility to present the something entirely different because what we personally believe is right or wrong. If righting wrongs is your goal, then publishing articles in high-quality journals would be the way to go, rather than introducing personal ideas to Wikipedia articles, see WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I approve of your amendment. However, the general problem remains that the sourced statements contradict each other, and the Wikipedia article does not assist the reader in resolving this contradiction. (On the one hand, the Cobley & Schulz reference employs the concept of model and theory in the conventional and scientifically usual form, which means there is no known truth, only models and theories and hypotheses; in contrast, the other cited sources implicitly assume that the process of communication is a fully known reality, and therefore models, theories and hypotheses are not necessary, it suffices to make simplifications of the known truth, and these simplifications are labelled "models" presumably to make the researcher sound more scholarly.) Surely we would not accept a Wikipedia article which says "Reference 1 says that the capital of France is Paris, and reference 2 says that the capital of France is Vichy." Both statements on France are correct in certain contexts, but the Wikipedia reader would be left confused whether Paris or Vichy was or is the capital of France. We should do better than this for the communications article. What is your suggestion? (Let me predict: do nothing and refer the problem to some Wiki chat page which never leads to anything... Been there, done that.) 37.5.242.3 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that we are making progress at least on one front. It's normal for different sources to describe their topic in slightly different ways. This is not automatically a problem and does not need to involve a contradiction. For this specific case, even if you are right that there is a contradiction, this is far from obvious and would require a detailed interpretation.
 * My suggestion is to find a reliable source that explicitly discusses this contradiction. This way, the information can be included in the article. But without a source, there is not much we can do since a non-trivial interpretation of whether or not a contradiction is involved would be a form of original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to find a reliable source that explicitly discusses this contradiction. This way, the information can be included in the article. But without a source, there is not much we can do since a non-trivial interpretation of whether or not a contradiction is involved would be a form of original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Following Phlsph7's suggestion, I have read the multi-author work "Theories and Models of Communication", De Gruyter publishers, edited by Cobley and Schulz (2013), to find out what communication researchers nowadays mean when they say "model". I have compared this 2013 source with the cited Ruben 2001 online encyclopedia, which references only older works, 1950s/1960s.

Briefly, the result is that communication researchers (as of 2013) tend to use "model" in the usual scientific manner, i.e. a model is a representation of reality, whereas a theory is an explanation of reality. It is therefore not sufficient to say that a model is a simplification of reality, as per the encyclopedia entry by Ruben 2001, as this definition is not found in the 2013 book. I am amending the Wikipedia article accordingly.

Details: The book contains 18 chapters by different authors and is fairly recent (2013). The term "theory" is used 803 times, "model" is used 535 times, "hypothesis" occurs 9 times, and "simplification" occurs only once. Of the 18 chapters, five chapters offer explicit definitions for "model". (The other chapters use the terms "model" and "theory" sporadically without explicitly explaining what they take these terms to mean.)

The five definitions converge on the central idea of a model being a representation/ picture/ figure/ diagramme/ design, only the first chapter contradicts itself somewhat by stating at one point that a model is similar to a theory.

Here are the five definitions, quoted literally:

Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz chapter 1, p7/8 "we can describe a model as a simplified picture of a part of the real world. It represents characteristics of reality, but only some of them. Like a picture, a model is much simpler than the phenomena it is supposed to represent or explain... a theory is supposed to represent or explain the phenomena to which it refers... in this volume, both terms, theory and model, are used interchangeably"

Robert T. Craig in chapter 3, p46/47: "Although the terms model and theory are sometimes treated as equivalent, this usage occludes an important distinction. A model is a representation of a phenomenon. An empirical-scientific theory is an explanation of a phenomenon...Insofar as a theory must represent the phenomenon of interest in some way, it can be said that every theory includes a model or at least has a conceptual form that can be modeled. However, not every model is a theory because not every model provides a principled explanation for the structure or process represented."

Richard L Lanigan, p64: "Models are abbreviated, usually diagrammed, presentations of theories. While the pictorial presentation is a useful visual aid to comprehension, it is critical to remember there is a large body of published research that explains the conceptual content of the model."

Gabriele Siegert and Bjorn Rimscha, p130: "media business models are not so much about daily business activities, but a fundamental concept of how the business can operate, what interfaces it offers for other industries, and what trade relations and financial interactions render it potentially successful. They can be described as structural design of the relevant flows of information, services, and, finally, products, and include an account of the necessary business activities and their reciprocal importance"

Davide Bolchini and Amy Shirong Lu, p399: "To provide a coherent perspective on the various facets of the notion of channel, we introduce here a tripartite model (Fig. 1), which serves two aims. First, it provides a synthetic view to conceptualize the complexity of what a channel is at the proper level of granularity and relevance for understanding modern communication. Second, it offers a perspective to illustrate how the notion of channel has been conceived and analyzed in different ways by some of the most famous communication models" 31.221.219.0 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having a look at Cobley & Schulz 2013. However, none of the passages you cite contradicts the idea that models simplify and some even support it. This characterization is quite common in reliable sources besides the ones mention so far. For example, see, , , and . I slightly adjusted the original formulation to more closely reflect the terminology in Cobley & Schulz 2013. It's usually not a good practice to remove reliable sources from an article just because they don't support one's preferred view. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your step is retrograde: nobody is disputing that models often "simplify" (the technical term is "reduction"). The reason for removing Ruben 2001 is that it is out of date compared to Cobley and Schulz 2013, given that the Ruben 2001 webpage cites literature only from the 1950s and 1960s. If you wish to retain Ruben 2001, please first explain to me why Ruben's non-academic, non-peer-reviewed private online comments are a reliable source for Wikipedia. (On a personal note: it appears that you like arguing on Wikipedia without taking the time to read the discussion, let alone the sources. Unprofessional.)46.6.174.166 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for advice at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have retrieved your "advice request" and the responses to it dated March 19/20. You did not alert the advice forum to the specific complaint that Ruben 2001 is outdated (citing literature from the 1950s/1960s), hence the respondent is puzzled why you asked for advice in the first place. Also you have not reported here that one of your respondents implies that it is inappropriate to cite this source at the beginning of the section. It appears this answer is not the one that you were looking for, and therefore you brushed it under the carpet, perhaps? 109.154.226.35 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)